首页> 外文学位 >Urban agriculture and various food sourcing strategies: How can they mitigate food insecurity amongst the urban poor in Cape Town, South Africa?
【24h】

Urban agriculture and various food sourcing strategies: How can they mitigate food insecurity amongst the urban poor in Cape Town, South Africa?

机译:都市农业和各种粮食采购策略:它们如何减轻南非开普敦城市贫民的粮食不安全状况?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

South Africa is considered food secure yet, depending on the source used, it is estimated that food insecurity exists in 20-52% of households. Many factors, such as differing livelihood strategies, play significant roles in determining food security and this project attempted to explore these issues, using Cape Town as a case study. In particular, we compared two types of urban agricultural interventions:home and community gardening as facilitated by two urban agriculture NGO's (Soil for Life and Abalimi, respectively).;These data suggest that food security may be positively affected by gardening practices as well as by increased diversity in food sourcing. Community gardening appeared to be more effective than home gardening, perhaps due to greater accessibility to inputs such as land space, manure and water, as facilitated directly by the associated NGO.;Semi-structured interviews were conducted amongst 91 participants living below the poverty line in two 'townships' in Cape Town: Langa and Khayelitsha. Twenty-five home-gardeners in Langa and 21 community-gardeners in Khayelitsha were interviewed and compared with equal numbers of non-gardeners in both areas. Data analysis showed that participants who cited community gardening as a food source were most food secure (Household Food Insecurity Access Scale [HFIAS] = 13.04), followed by Langa's home gardeners (HFIAS = 18.88), Langa's non-gardeners (HFIAS = 21.84) and finally non-gardeners in Khayelitsha (HFIAS = 22.25). Food Security for non-gardeners in Langa and Khayelitsha was correlated with income (r=0.78; 0.48, respectively), as compared to both gardening groups. The gardeners in Langa and Khayelitsha also showed more diversified diets and lower Months of Inadequate Household Food Provisioning Scores (MIHFP), indicating fewer months of inadequate food provisioning.
机译:南非被认为是粮食安全的,但根据使用的来源,估计有20-52%的家庭存在粮食不安全。许多因素,例如不同的生计策略,在决定粮食安全方面发挥着重要作用,该项目试图以开普敦为例研究这些问题。特别是,我们比较了两种类型的城市农业干预措施:由两个城市农业非政府组织(分别为生命之土壤和阿巴利米)推动的家庭园艺和社区园艺;这些数据表明,园艺实践以及通过增加食品采购的多样性。社区园艺似乎比家庭园艺更有效,这可能是由于相关非政府组织直接促进了土地,肥料和水等投入的可及性;在贫困线以下的91名参与者中进行了半结构化访谈在开普敦的两个“乡”中:Langa和Khayelitsha。采访了兰加省的25个家庭园丁和哈耶利特沙的21个社区园丁,并比较了两个地区的非园丁的数量。数据分析表明,以社区园艺为食物来源的参与者最安全(家庭粮食不安全获取量表[HFIAS] = 13.04),其次是Langa的家庭园艺师(HFIAS = 18.88),Langa的非园艺师(HFIAS = 21.84)。最后是Khayelitsha的非园丁(HFIAS = 22.25)。与两个园艺组相比,Langa和Khayelitsha的非园艺工人的粮食安全与收入相关(r = 0.78; 0.48)。 Langa和Khayelitsha的园丁的饮食结构也更多样化,家庭食物供应分数不足月份(MIHFP)较低,表明食物供应不足的月份减少了。

著录项

  • 作者

    Letts, Ellen Mary.;

  • 作者单位

    Queen's University (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 Queen's University (Canada).;
  • 学科 Agriculture Food Science and Technology.
  • 学位 M.S.
  • 年度 2013
  • 页码 140 p.
  • 总页数 140
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:41:43

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号